The lack of analysis and reflection in news stories amongst television news audiences
An Introduction to the Problem The television is a powerful medium that is used by most people around the world. Television provides viewers with information about any topic imaginable, and not to mention, programs strictly for entertaining. There are shows about contests, reality TV, game shows, soap operas, and the list is endless. Although it may seem that most of the programs on television are for entertainment purposes and have little academic content, one of the most influential programs on television, within any country, is the news. News stations/programs are seen everywhere, and are accessible by everyone. Since most people would rather watch programs intended to entertain, the only academic/intellectual information television viewers receive are from news programming. Because news programs are seen as "prestigious" and intelligent, viewers may feel that whatever is said by a newscaster or by someone who appears to have an "intellectual image" must be true, and believed as fact.
This report will discuss how most television viewers do not question what they see and hear on television news programs, and that such programs can be deceptive, biased, and misleading. Viewers do not question why or how certain stories are being covered and why such things are being said. The report will also state how most people easily accept and believe everything that is said on news programs, without any personal analysis or reflection. This report will discuss and analyze these issues, who the main stakeholders are, and any views/opinions there may be regarding these issues.
The Abundance of Information and Image of Importance
Most television news audiences do not seem to analyze what they see and hear on television, and simply accept them as fact. It has been said that "…uninterested (‘low involvement’) people…are influenced by, information if it is only abundant and striking enough"
Obama & McCain / BBC.com
(Schoenbach & Lauf, 2004, p.170). This shows that people who are uninterested about current events, political matters, or any academic issue will not show interest unless it appears important or is continually discussed on news programs. An example of this can be seen during the recent US presidential elections.
During the elections, news stations, particularly CNN, continually covered, discussed, and analyzed the presidential race from the moment it began to its very end. This would be an example of abundance. Viewers began to realize that many news stations were continually covering the presidential elections, and therefore, must be important. The information conveyed by news networks may not have always been important/relevant to the elections, but viewers continued to tune in, as they attempted to gain as much "information" as possible. Due to the abundance of information, viewers may have begun to believe what they were being told, without questioning any of the content.
News Stations and Advertisers: One-Track Mind News programs and advertisements work together in order to keep audiences interested and tuned in. "Commercials are fast-paced, exciting, and colourful, and as a result, influence the way the news stories around them are produced…the whole news program takes on a rhythm and pace designed to hold interest and build viewership" (Postman & Powers, 1992, p.6). This shows that advertisements that follow during a commercial break are not coincidentally aired. This demonstrates how news programs are not only designed to provide information to the viewers, but also, to help advertisers succeed in making profits.
Since millions of people watch the news everyday, the chance for advertisers to increase profits rises. This leads one to think that news programs may choose to cover stories that benefit sponsors and increases product sales. News programs may air a story discussing what product is best, comparing similar products to one another. If a product belongs to one of their sponsors, positive things are likely to be said, while products belonging to the competition will result in negative things being said.
A Famous Example: ABC
One famous example that emphasizes this is ABC’s decision to not air a story regarding paedophiles working at Disney. The Walt Disney Company owns ABC, which may have been the primary reason as to why the story was rejected. "David We
Disney & ABC / Deadline Hollywood Daily.com
stin, president of ABC News…rejected it in an exchange that both sides described as heated…" (Carter, "ABC Shelves Report on Parent Disney"). One feels that ABC rejected the story in order to avoid conflict or "negative relations" with its owner. ABC personnel may have feared losing their jobs, if such a negative story about their owners were to have been aired. This demonstrates that news programs practice strict gate-keeping, and only air stories that are beneficial to the station, their sponsors, and their owners. This is a perfect example as to why television viewers must question and analyze everything they see and hear on television news. If they do not, they are prone to being misinformed and misled.
The Choice of Wording
The use of wording used by news anchors is key in effecting audience beliefs and decisions. One classic example is using the term "‘freedom fighter’ over ‘guerrilla’…could show how social forces [are] pushing the text one way or another" (Matheson, 200
"Public Opinion" / Pewresearch.org
5, p.20). This shows how news programs can sway public belief/opinion by choosing to use specific language when reporting the news. Looking at the example stated above, a "freedom fighter" and a "guerrilla" are no different from one another. They both fight, kill, and use force in an attempt to get their way and support their cause. The only difference is that the term "freedom fighter" connotes a positive image, and is seen as being "good", while a "guerrilla" connotes a negative image, and is seen as being "bad." Language used in the media is key to promoting popular belief. The way the news media reports a story, and the attitudes they display, will most likely trigger similar beliefs in the viewers themselves. This shows why audiences must question what they are being told, and not simply accept every piece of information as an instant fact.
The Stakeholders
As one may have already guessed, the main stakeholders for this issue are the news stations, its sponsors, and owners. All of them have one goal – to make money. This is the case because "…news departments and programs are now expected to make money" (Postman & Powers, 1992, p.6). Why would a sponsor choose to sponsor a news program if they did not expect anything in return? One feels that sponsors donate funding to news programs in return for advertising and financial gain. The news programs/stations would want their sponsors to make profits, in order for them to keep donating to the network. If news stations were asked if any these "accusations" were true, they would undoubtedly say "no." But, that is to be expected. Why would any major television network or corporation admit to wrongdoing or audience manipulation? That would be unheard of. One feels that it is a constant cycle, with both the sponsors and the news networks benefiting. This is why certain stories are aired, in hopes of capturing the attention of audiences throughout the entire news program.
Television audiences are the other stakeholders. They are not stakeholders for news stations, but rather for themselves. They are constantly fed misleading and biased information, making it difficult to distinguish the truth from the not. They are constan
Y2K Scare:"End of the World" / Disinformation.com
tly being manipulated, all in the name of profits. A famous example of this was during the Y2K scare. News stations claimed that everything (computers, technology, etc.) would crash, lights would go out, mechanical devices would stop working, and that people had to prepare themselves. As expected, everyone listened, and rushed out to buy all kinds of items, such as canned foods, flashlights, bottled water, heating blankets, etc. But once the year 2000 arrived, nothing happened. Did major corporations already know that nothing was going to happen? Did news networks know this? Was it all just a big scam to get consumers to buy and spend more on unnecessary items that no one ever really needed to buy in the first place? I’m sure everyone, including the "experts" on television news programs and outspoken newscasters have all the answers. But, enough about what they have to say. What do you think?
The following clip was taken from the movie "Network (1976)." I believe, although it is "only a movie" it speaks volumes about what mass media has done to viewers, and how it has manipulated and taken over our lives.
- Matheson, Donald. (2005). Media Discourses: Analysing Media Texts. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
- Postman, Neil, & Powers, Steve. (1992). How To Watch TV News. New York: Penguin Books.
- Schoenbach, Klaus, & Lauf, Edmund. (2004). Another look at the ‘trap’ effect of television – and beyond. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. World Association for Public Opinion Research. Vol.16. No.2.
The lack of analysis and reflection in news stories amongst television news audiences
An Introduction to the Problem
The television is a powerful medium that is used by most people around the world. Television provides viewers with information about any topic imaginable, and not to mention, programs strictly for entertaining. There are shows about contests, reality TV, game shows, soap operas, and the list is endless. Although it may seem that most of the programs on television are for entertainment purposes and have little academic content, one of the most influential programs on television, within any country, is the news. News stations/programs are seen everywhere, and are accessible by everyone. Since most people would rather watch programs intended to entertain, the only academic/intellectual information television viewers receive are from news programming. Because news programs are seen as "prestigious" and intelligent, viewers may feel that whatever is said by a newscaster or by someone who appears to have an "intellectual image" must be true, and believed as fact.
This report will discuss how most television viewers do not question what they see and hear on television news programs, and that such programs can be deceptive, biased, and misleading. Viewers do not question why or how certain stories are being covered and why such things are being said. The report will also state how most people easily accept and believe everything that is said on news programs, without any personal analysis or reflection. This report will discuss and analyze these issues, who the main stakeholders are, and any views/opinions there may be regarding these issues.
The Abundance of Information and Image of Importance
Most television news audiences do not seem to analyze what they see and hear on television, and simply accept them as fact. It has been said that "…uninterested (‘low involvement’) people…are influenced by, information if it is only abundant and striking enough"
During the elections, news stations, particularly CNN, continually covered, discussed, and analyzed the presidential race from the moment it began to its very end. This would be an example of abundance. Viewers began to realize that many news stations were continually covering the presidential elections, and therefore, must be important. The information conveyed by news networks may not have always been important/relevant to the elections, but viewers continued to tune in, as they attempted to gain as much "information" as possible. Due to the abundance of information, viewers may have begun to believe what they were being told, without questioning any of the content.
News Stations and Advertisers: One-Track Mind
News programs and advertisements work together in order to keep audiences interested and tuned in. "Commercials are fast-paced, exciting, and colourful, and as a result, influence the way the news stories around them are produced…the whole news program takes on a rhythm and pace designed to hold interest and build viewership" (Postman & Powers, 1992, p.6). This shows that advertisements that follow during a commercial break are not coincidentally aired. This demonstrates how news programs are not only designed to provide information to the viewers, but also, to help advertisers succeed in making profits.
Since millions of people watch the news everyday, the chance for advertisers to increase profits rises. This leads one to think that news programs may choose to cover stories that benefit sponsors and increases product sales. News programs may air a story discussing what product is best, comparing similar products to one another. If a product belongs to one of their sponsors, positive things are likely to be said, while products belonging to the competition will result in negative things being said.
A Famous Example: ABC
One famous example that emphasizes this is ABC’s decision to not air a story regarding paedophiles working at Disney. The Walt Disney Company owns ABC, which may have been the primary reason as to why the story was rejected. "David We
The Choice of Wording
The use of wording used by news anchors is key in effecting audience beliefs and decisions. One classic example is using the term "‘freedom fighter’ over ‘guerrilla’…could show how social forces [are] pushing the text one way or another" (Matheson, 200
The Stakeholders
As one may have already guessed, the main stakeholders for this issue are the news stations, its sponsors, and owners. All of them have one goal – to make money. This is the case because "…news departments and programs are now expected to make money" (Postman & Powers, 1992, p.6). Why would a sponsor choose to sponsor a news program if they did not expect anything in return? One feels that sponsors donate funding to news programs in return for advertising and financial gain. The news programs/stations would want their sponsors to make profits, in order for them to keep donating to the network. If news stations were asked if any these "accusations" were true, they would undoubtedly say "no." But, that is to be expected. Why would any major television network or corporation admit to wrongdoing or audience manipulation? That would be unheard of. One feels that it is a constant cycle, with both the sponsors and the news networks benefiting. This is why certain stories are aired, in hopes of capturing the attention of audiences throughout the entire news program.
Television audiences are the other stakeholders. They are not stakeholders for news stations, but rather for themselves. They are constantly fed misleading and biased information, making it difficult to distinguish the truth from the not. They are constan
The following clip was taken from the movie "Network (1976)." I believe, although it is "only a movie" it speaks volumes about what mass media has done to viewers, and how it has manipulated and taken over our lives.
Taken from Youtube.ca
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8&feature=related
References
- Carter, Bill. (October 15, 1998). ABC Shelves Report on Parent Disney. New York Times. Online. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E2DE133AF936A25753C1A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
- Matheson, Donald. (2005). Media Discourses: Analysing Media Texts. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
- Postman, Neil, & Powers, Steve. (1992). How To Watch TV News. New York: Penguin Books.
- Schoenbach, Klaus, & Lauf, Edmund. (2004). Another look at the ‘trap’ effect of television – and beyond. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. World Association for Public Opinion Research. Vol.16. No.2.
Photos
- "US Elections: Obama and McCain". BBC.com. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45161000/jpg/_45161338_livenowuselex512.jpg
- "Walt Disney & ABC". Deadlinehollywooddaily.com. http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/disney-abc.JPG
- "Public Opinion". Pewresearch.org. http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/110-interior.jpg
- "Y2K/Atom Bomb". Disinformation.com. http://stillfootball.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/mushroom-cloud.jpg
Videos
- "Network 1976" Clip. Youtube.ca http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8&feature=related